Marcy:
You’re certainly in good company in calling for minarchy rather than
anarchy.
Your comparison with Argentina is especially interesting. I haven’t
read Argentina’s Constitution, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it were
rather similar to ours. The Soviet Union famously had a Constitution
which supposed guaranteed all sorts of wonderful things. If that’s
true, it inclines me to think that it isn’t the Constitution that’s
making the difference, so much as something about the culture. Again,
the point that, if the supporting culture is there, the Constitution is
superfluous; if it isn’t, a Constitution won’t help.
You’re right that many arguments about anarchy end up being unsatisfying
because there isn’t any good current national example to point to.
Somalia, medieval Iceland and Ireland: Nothing that happened there is
going to feel to closely applicable to the modern U.S. You’re also
right about the problems of the present world on an international
level–war, poverty, etc. But it’s fair to ask what leads you to think
the world would be a better place if we had a world government.
Opposition to anarchy would suggest that you would favor significantly
strengthening the United Nations, to give it some real teeth, as a
government able to assert its authority.
[mailto:lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Amarcy D. Berry